The Supreme Court, in Slate of U.P v. Jaswit rl Slngh, AIR

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or orders or directions, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia, declaring the act of imposing condition "The arms license is granted on sentimental grounds only and cannot be used for self / property protection, sports or any other purpose.,, in the License Bearing No. 03/Homei2021 daled 0110212021 , as illegal, arbrtrary and violation of fundamental rights under Articlel4 and 21 ol constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to slrike out the impugned condition in the interest of justice. l I i lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cotrr . may be pleased to suspend the conditlon "The arms license is granted on sent nental grounds only and cannot be used for self / property protection, sports or a ry other purpose,' in the License Bearing No. 03/Home/2o21 dated 01-02-2021 rntil the disposal of the present Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLU MIDHUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER i t t THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9895 OF 2021 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "/ssae a writ or an order or directions, especially one in the nature of Mandamus under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia declaring the action of imposing condition 'The arms license is granted on sentimental grounds only and cannot be used for self/propertv protection, sporfs or any other purpose" n the License Bearing No.03/Home/2021 dated 01.02.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights under Afticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to strike out the impugned condition in the interest of jLtstice..."

2.1 . The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted Arms Licence No. 03/Homel2O21 daled 01 .02.2021 under the category of Licence to Legal Heirs. However, the licence was issued with a restrictive rider stipulating that it was granted "on sentimental grounds only and cannot be used for self/propefty proteclion, sports, or any other purpose." 2

2.2. Counsel further contends that such a restriction is unsupported by any provision of the Arms Act, '195I or the Arms Rules, 2016, and that the said condition rende r; the licence purposeless, effectively reducing the firearm to a n ornamental possession. lt is urged that, as the restriction is no ;anctioned by law, it is arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of 1e petitioner's statutory rights. Hence, intervention of this Court is I ought.

3. The Learned Assistant Government Pleac:r for Home submits that the petitioner was granted the arms lcence as the legal heir of the deceased licence holder. Since here was no threat perception warranting self-defense, the licence was granted with the impugned condition restricting ts use. lt is contended that the said condition is consistent n ith the policy framework governing transfer of firearms 1e lsr; tl heirs. The Learned Government Pleader further submits that the appetlate authority has already examined the matter and r rhile granting licence, justified the restriction, taking into account t re petitioner's lack of threat perception. Accordingly, it is argued th lt the order of the appellate authority is legal and proper, and ttt rt the petition deserves dismissal. i i : , I I 3

4. Having carefully perused the record and considered the rival submissions, the core issue for determination is whether the restriction imposed by the appellate authority, limiting the licence to sentimental purposes only, is supported by law or is arbitrary and without jurisdiction

5. lt is undisputed that the original licence was issued to the petitioner's father, without any restrictive conditions. The grant of arms licences to legal heirs is specifically governed by Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which reads as follows: "25. Grant of licences to legal heirs (1) The licensing authority may grant a licence- (a) after the death of the licensee, to his legal heir; or (b) in any other case, on the licensee attaining the age of seventy years or on holding the firearm for twenty-five years, whichever is earlier, to any legal heir nominated by him Provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 12, the licensing authority may grant a licence to such legal heir if the eligibility conditions under the Act and these rules are fulfilled by the said legal heir and there are no adverse remarks in the police report I I 4 (2) Where a licensee leaves behind more than one l: gal heir and the legal heirs decide among themselves to retain tir( arm or arms of the deceased, one of them nominated by al rthers may apply for a licence... along with (i) a declaration of n: objection from the remaining legal heirs; (ii) an indemnity bonri and (iii) a copy of the death ce(ificate."

6. A plain reading of the above provision demc nstrates that subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria, and in tlt absence of adverse remarks in the police verification, the licerrr ing authority is bound to grant the licence to the legal heir. Neith,,r Section 13 of the Arms Act, '1 959 nor Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 confers any discretion upon the licensing authori y to impose additional or extraneous conditions restricting the awful use of the arm by the legal heir

7. The Supreme Court, in Slate of U.P. v. Jaswit rl Slngh, AIR 1968 SC 1909, emphasized that statutory discrr:1 on must be exercised within the four corners of the enabling stE tute and that imposition of conditions not sanctioned by law rencr rs the action ultra vires. Similarly, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of ,t dia, (1978) 1 5 SCC 248, it was held that arbitrariness in administrative action violates Article 14 of the Constitution

8. Further, the High Courts in Raghurai Singh v State of U P , 2009 SCC Online All 1246, and V Raiagopala Naidu v State of Tamil Nadu,2015 SCC Online Mad 12442, have categorically held that conditions not traceable to the statutory framework of the Arms Act or Rules cannot be sustained, as they amount to unwarranted curtailment of lawful rights of the licensee'

9. Applying these principles, it is evident that the rider imposed in the present case that the licence is granted 'bn sentimental grounds only" and cannot be used for protection, sport, or any lawful purpose, is unsupported by any provision under the Arms Act or Rules. Such a restriction defeats the very object of granting an arms licence, which, under Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959, authorizes lawful possession and use of arms subject to statutory conditions-

10. This Court, therefore, holds that the restriction imposed by the appellate authority is arbitrary, illegal, and beyond the scope of its statutory powers. The licensing authority's discretion must operate within the boundaries prescribed by the Arms Act and 6 \: Rules, and cannot be expanded by administr: ive policy or subjective interpretation.

11. Accordingly. the condition imposed viz., 1l at the ,,Arms Licence is granted on sentimental grounds only.ld cannot be used for self/propefty protection, spods, or any ottl r purpose., is hereby quashed and set aside as being without l, rgal sanction. The 2nd respondent is directed to take conse(l tential action forthwith, ensuring that the petitioner's licence is egularized in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arm; Rules, 2016, without the impugned restrictive clause.

12. With this direction, the Writ petition is allowerl No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the )etition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSII TANT REGISTRAC //'. a:) SECTION OFFICER To, ' Ii:J:UUi;HL"iiy Home Department, state or re: nsana, secretarrrat, 'i!hH:$f ,'#i:,:'!",,i"",[i?l?S."ilA1ffi3;1,i"?r:i#,;iii j,',,11?n*, . tsash. Hyderabad. .6,,ng?llg.. s00 ore E";;iilili-f;vo t, rotice oov in r one cc ro SRTALLU Ir/TDHUN KUMAR Ij;;JJtE,iocr,,,1 _ 4. Iwo CCs to Gp FoR HotVE, Hish Co;ri?;;i;;Hriu or t etansana [oUTj CD copies . A[. GJP I I i; HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 t ORDER WP.No.9895 o12021 Io( TASEH r ) il ? /tlr( 2 * * ;rtrArC ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 71, a